Skyscript Astrology Forum

Pakajdubey wrote:

So, retrospectively, you can never be comparatively correct about a Key.
The idea is to use one consistently.
Off Topic: I have been told the same thing about Ayanamsa in Hindu Astrology(Jyotisha) by someone who actually took the trouble of speaking to Dr.Raman when he was alive.

I absolutely agree, but I think this may be easier for Indians who often, probably wisely, follow the tradition of teachers (parampara) they find themselves within. I started studying astrology out of necessity with books (Indian, using Lahiri), then followed other books that I found more convincing where the authors (i.e. my "teachers") preferred Krishnamurti, then took lessons with an experienced teacher who had just abandoned Lahiri for Krushna ayanamsha (close to Bhasin). So on this site, I'm quite happy to use Krishnamurti as per Martin Gansten and others, to facilitate exchanges. Privately, I consistently use another.
Back to topic: for primaries I'm now fairly consistently using Naibod and a normal solar year, but I do (perhaps wrongly) feel tempted to experiment occasionally with other ideas that come my way. And sometimes, you find that something you experiment with turns out to have a traditional basis (as Margherita's remark shows).
I've noticed that those who very consistently follow a particular key (or ayanamsha, house system, aspect set, orb or indeed zodiac) are also quite good at retro-fitting - it's so much easier than predicting!
Graham

I have a suggestion.Which may or may not be too bad an idea.
It can be a two step approach.


Event at age 24:
Primary key differences that are in minutes will make a difference of 24 min=5months

360 vs 365 days a year= this would be 120 days.

but event at age 60:
Primary key 60min= 1year difference
and by year duartion method = 300days

So, naibod and 360days a year is almost the same as Ptolemy and 365 days a year.

In jyotisha, I worked out that, a particular ayanamsha with a savana year as duration works best for later part of life.

pankajdubey wrote

naibod and 360days a year is almost the same as Ptolemy and 365 days a year

This is an interesting observation, which may or may not be a coincidence. But it would seem slightly illogical to mix real and ideal in this way: that the precise real mean solar movement in a day should represent one ideal year, whereas the ideal 360th division of the sidereal day should represent one real solar year... but you never know.

BTW, since this isn't the Indian astrology forum, we should explain that savana year = 360 day year.
You suggested in your last post that, rather than experimenting and retro-fitting, we would would do better to stick consistently to a given method. But in this case you have found something interesting by "working it out" for yourself, as you say - I was only trying to do the same with PDs!
Graham

lihin wrote: only Claudius Ptolemy's key and what is now called the 'Naibod' key, named after the German mathematician, astronomer-astrologer Herr Valentin Naboth, were used. lihin

Sorry, but Ptolemy Key is not Naibod Key!

1Year=1? Ptolemy key Koeffizent =1
Naibod: 59' 8.33'' = 1Year,
1? =1.01456164 Years, Koeffizent =1.01456164

page 35 in Prim?rdirektionen I, by Rumen Kolev

Wolfgang

I think you've misunderstood Lihin, Wolfgang, though he was quite clear. Try replacing "and" with "or" (or "in addition to") in the sentence you quote, if you prefer.
Graham

You are right. Gramham. I did read too fast...

Wolfgang

margherita wrote:

Graham Fox wrote: The problem for me is that if Naibod works for the reasons given, then the key of Brahe/Kepler (true solar RA arc -birthday) or even that of Placidus (true solar RA arc over X days) should surely work even better - but they don't, quite the contrary, at least for me.

I believe that the preference about a key or another is strictly personal. In Cieloeterra they use the placidian key and it works quite well. Others like Martin prefer Naibod. Two different experiences....

I tend to use keys in a "historical" way, Ptolemy with semi-arc, placidian with mundane or under-the- pole because I'm not persuaded one really works better than another. I'm agnostic:) , I just try to be faithful to the authors.

margherita

Your blog tells many usefull guides about using Morinus. It seems to me that Naibod is better for many cases though it can't pinpoint quite the day which is not so important. With ptolemy or under the pole, sometimes I can get very exact days, but also far away with other cases.

What follows is from Rumen Kolev's booklet Primary Directions I page 37.

There are three theories concerning the keys. The first and most simple is that one, and only one, key is "the right"key for anyone. This is the credo of the majority of astrolgoers who practiced or practice the primaries.

Another one's (sic) belief is that for a given person there is on effective key and this may happen to be any of the aforementioned keys.

The third theory accepts the possibility that several keys may be found effective. The combination of the efficient keys in different charts can be different. For one person Ptolemy and Kepler may work, for another - Naibod and Placidus. The author [i.e. Kolev] is a proponent of this las theory. In most cases I have observed high efficiency with the four static keys. For beginners I recommend to use first Ptolemy, and then try Synodic, Cardan, and Naibod. With an extrovert, I usually try first Naibod (based on the solar year). With an introvert, Ptolemy or the Synodic (0.98435) may be found efficient.

The Synodic Key is Kolev's idea. It is based on the mean lunar year.